Why are poor countries still poor in this day and age?

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Czar
like one African economist/or something like that said on the bbc, "stop sending aid to africa"

yea basically distorting their markets and keeping corrupt unworkable regiems afloat
help that hurts...


the economist also had projections on places like mexico, they are so f*cked they won't catch up with the us for more than 100+ years

see why we need the fence? lol the problem aint' goin away anytime soon

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.</end quote></div>

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.</end quote></div>Africa sucked crap before imperialism, it actually in many areas sucked less crap while the White Devil was still in many of its countries (often, once the minority whites in charge of a country left, the country got worse), and now it continues to suck crap and would suck crap if we disappeared. You speak as if the wealth was on a table and the imperialists grabbed this finite wealth before the africans did. Most of the exploitation is by Africans against Africans. They have themselves to blame for their continent being a mess. There are thousands of kids walking around Africa right now minus an arm or two. Others who had to shoot their parents, some who've had to rape family members. They didn't learn those tricks from imperialists.

Nope, you are wrong. Those African did learn a lot of those tricks from imperialist. I read a book a while back talking about western imperialism, and one of the most often used trick when a few white trying to rule a population that's much bigger, is to turn the population against each other. The Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda is the best example. The Beglians used favoritism and created class conflicts between the two racial group and we all know the outcome of that.

And while many of those poor countries was not developed before western imperialist arrived, they didn't have bunch of foreigners sucking their country dry, taking everything they could back to the western world, and creating classes conflict for easier rule. Of course much of the blame goes to the native people, and they do have their independence for a while. But if their resources were sucked try and there are all those internal problems like class conflicts and huge poverty gaps between the have and the have nots, it will be tough for those countries to improve without international help.

 

[hellokeith]

A good friend of mine who has been to missionary missions to Africa a number of times had this to say about the African continent:
"They won't do anything the right way. Even wars, they do a terribly ineffective and inefficient job of fighting wars."

Unfortunately, all the money in the world can't save Africa. I recommend watching the movie Blood Diamond to anyone who thinks things are bad in the USA.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: beyoku
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.</end quote></div>

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.</end quote></div>Africa sucked crap before imperialism, it actually in many areas sucked less crap while the White Devil was still in many of its countries (often, once the minority whites in charge of a country left, the country got worse), and now it continues to suck crap and would suck crap if we disappeared. You speak as if the wealth was on a table and the imperialists grabbed this finite wealth before the africans did. Most of the exploitation is by Africans against Africans. They have themselves to blame for their continent being a mess. There are thousands of kids walking around Africa right now minus an arm or two. Others who had to shoot their parents, some who've had to rape family members. They didn't learn those tricks from imperialists.</end quote></div>

Wow, describe Africa before Imperialism and colonialism...

it was like ethiopia

btw ethiopia was never colonized. it was a sh*thole before. it is a sh*t hole now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...tion_living_in_poverty
its near the top...in the bad way.
south africa even with apartheid is far lower on the list.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: rchiu
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.</end quote></div>

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.</end quote></div>Africa sucked crap before imperialism, it actually in many areas sucked less crap while the White Devil was still in many of its countries (often, once the minority whites in charge of a country left, the country got worse), and now it continues to suck crap and would suck crap if we disappeared. You speak as if the wealth was on a table and the imperialists grabbed this finite wealth before the africans did. Most of the exploitation is by Africans against Africans. They have themselves to blame for their continent being a mess. There are thousands of kids walking around Africa right now minus an arm or two. Others who had to shoot their parents, some who've had to rape family members. They didn't learn those tricks from imperialists.</end quote></div>

Nope, you are wrong. Those African did learn a lot of those tricks from imperialist. I read a book a while back talking about western imperialism, and one of the most often used trick when a few white trying to rule a population that's much bigger, is to turn the population against each other. The Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda is the best example. The Beglians used favoritism and created class conflicts between the two racial group and we all know the outcome of that.

And while many of those poor countries was not developed before western imperialist arrived, they didn't have bunch of foreigners sucking their country dry, taking everything they could back to the western world, and creating classes conflict for easier rule. Of course much of the blame goes to the native people, and they do have their independence for a while. But if their resources were sucked try and there are all those internal problems like class conflicts and huge poverty gaps between the have and the have nots, it will be tough for those countries to improve without international help.

Some of the things rebel groups in Africa have done are almost unspeakable. Groups throughout history have been playing psychological games; I'm not talking class conflicts here; I'm talking about acts such as rape a woman and then place bets on her baby's sex and hack it out of her uterus with a machete before she gives birth. Or make a son rape his mother. Or make him shoot his family to death. Or make a prisoner pick from a pile of notes what will happen to him, each with something on it such as cut off genitalia or lips. Did the imperialists do that? Some of the conflict in Africa is barbarism on a level that could bring some to tears simply to hear of it.

Africa is now, as it was before the imperialists, a poor continent with power struggles and starvation.

But if their resources were sucked try and there are all those internal problems like class conflicts and huge poverty gaps between the have and the have nots, it will be tough for those countries to improve without international help.

Is it hard to sleep with this liberal guilt? Africa has plenty of remaining resources--in fact, that's why its economy is, on a continental basis, growing. There were classes before, anyway, just as in every single society in existence has ever had--the haves and the have-nots.

If you want to give aid to Africa, it's commendable, but do it because you think it's right, not because you feel guilt over something you never did wrong and your ancestors never did wrong. Africa has created its own problems.

it was like ethiopia

btw ethiopia was never colonized. it was a sh*thole before. it is a sh*t hole now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...tion_living_in_poverty
its near the top...in the bad way.
south africa even with apartheid is far lower on the list.

From what I understand, there's a fairly solid link between the exit of the colonials in certain African nations and their relative collapse. I believe that Nigeria used to be in good shape before they were left to their own devices and now look at them. They are not the exception, either. South Africa is the most successful country on that god forsaken continent and also is the most entrenched with imperialists.

I remember hearing in school when I was a kid an argument about how basically it was all our fault (the West) that Africa and other nations had poor people and I actually believed it. I felt bad. Damned teachers, though, they love to feed their garbage to impressionable kids!

 

[MadRat]

Aid is a funny thing. Don't give it they have a chance to make themselves prosper. Give it and they self-destruct. Withdraw it and they implode. When the poor countries prosper a civil war funded by outsiders typically rips it back apart. A certain predictable cycle is going on here.

Anyone ever think the aid goes out to these countries to keep the poor man poor?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Here are some interesting but very, very politically incorrect (and maybe even racist) articles that, if true, might help to answer the OP's question. It's one of those things that people might think about or suspect but that no one would dare to mention in public.

IQ: Why Africa is Africa and Haiti Haiti
http://vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq.htm

The Intelligence of Nations
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm

Solving The African IQ Conundrum : "Winning Personality" Masks Low Scores
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq_conundrum.htm

In two earlier VDARE.COM articles (click here and here), I discussed the low average African IQ of 70 reported by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in their path-breaking book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

As their IQ map of the world illustrates, the average IQ for all countries is 90 (The Wealth of Nations is mapped by their IQ, By Glen Owen, November 10, 2003). Less than one in five countries has national IQs equal or near the British norm of 100. Almost half the countries have national IQs of 90 or less.

Note. I didn't say that I believed this nor that I endorse these op-eds, only that they might be worth reading and that the question of IQ across different groups of people might be worth considering even though the social implications of this matter might be unpalatable and politically incorrect. Of course, we rightfully hate the idea proposed...but what if it is true? Note that the author also claimed that East Asians beat out whites in the IQ department (107 to 100).

 

[dennilfloss]

One major obstacle, which also plagues the middle east, is tribalism.

 

[Whitecloak]

400 years of imperialism takes a while to get rid off.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Here are some interesting but very, very politically incorrect (and maybe even racist) articles that, if true, might help to answer the OP's question. It's one of those things that people might think about or suspect but that no one would dare to mention in public.

IQ: Why Africa is Africa and Haiti Haiti
http://vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq.htm

The Intelligence of Nations
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm

Solving The African IQ Conundrum : "Winning Personality" Masks Low Scores
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq_conundrum.htm

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In two earlier VDARE.COM articles (click here and here), I discussed the low average African IQ of 70 reported by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in their path-breaking book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

As their IQ map of the world illustrates, the average IQ for all countries is 90 (The Wealth of Nations is mapped by their IQ, By Glen Owen, November 10, 2003). Less than one in five countries has national IQs equal or near the British norm of 100. Almost half the countries have national IQs of 90 or less.</end quote></div>

Note. I didn't say that I believed this nor that I endorse these op-eds, only that they might be worth reading and that the question of IQ across different groups of people might be worth considering even though the social implications of this matter might be unpalatable and politically incorrect. Of course, we rightfully hate the idea proposed...but what if it is true? Note that the author also claimed that East Asians beat out whites in the IQ department (107 to 100).

It is true that the average IQ in Africa is pretty damn low. What those studies seem to ignore, however, is that IQ and caloric intake are very highly correlated. There is a ton of malnutrition in Africa which is a large reason for there lower average IQ.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: beyoku
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Skoorb
If all of the rich countries and their inhabitants disappeared tomorrow, Africa, for example, would still be a festering sh*t hole of a continent. It has nothing to do with their wealth being stolen or anything else.</end quote></div>

I think it's far too complicated a question to answer as blithely as you do, if the wealthy nations disappeared; you have to sort out the benefits, on the one hand, that come from the wealthy nations, and then account for the harms, such as the centuries of colonialism and exploitation and corrupt governments being installed (for example, running up the debt from the western nations and preventing the investment into the infrastructure/education/social services).

That's not trivial, and it also kind of pointless, since the question isn't if the wealthy nations went away.

The question is if the wealthy nations are still there, but don't exploit Africa, and even provide some 'real' aid. But that's not what we see.

As I said, much of it simply isn't developed yet; that takes time.</end quote></div>Africa sucked crap before imperialism, it actually in many areas sucked less crap while the White Devil was still in many of its countries (often, once the minority whites in charge of a country left, the country got worse), and now it continues to suck crap and would suck crap if we disappeared. You speak as if the wealth was on a table and the imperialists grabbed this finite wealth before the africans did. Most of the exploitation is by Africans against Africans. They have themselves to blame for their continent being a mess. There are thousands of kids walking around Africa right now minus an arm or two. Others who had to shoot their parents, some who've had to rape family members. They didn't learn those tricks from imperialists.</end quote></div>

Wow, describe Africa before Imperialism and colonialism...</end quote></div>

it was like ethiopia

btw ethiopia was never colonized. it was a sh*thole before. it is a sh*t hole now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...tion_living_in_poverty
its near the top...in the bad way.
south africa even with apartheid is far lower on the list.

Again, how far are you going back to state "before Imperialism?" Most of these countries are 15 to 50 years "old." Even then, that country wasted SO much money to fight imperialism and later its neighbors because of the same reasons rchiu brings up.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
400 years of imperialism takes a while to get rid off.

Except, as noted already, Africa was substantially behind the West before any colonials popped in to take things over.

WhipperSnapperThere may or may not be something to that. I won't discount it just because it's un-PC, but I can't imagine the difference in IQ is as substantial as noted there. The problem with IQ is that it's not a perfect test. If we had some proven, objective way to dissect one's intelligence and quantify it, then we could talk, but IQ tests merely extrapolate based on questions that can be linked to things like education, so though IQ may well measure somebody's current competence, it doesn't necessarily measure their potential as well.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
One major obstacle, which also plagues the middle east, is tribalism.

Thats not an obstacle, there is tribalism everywhere in the world, most often its called nationalism because your tribe forms its own nation. The problem is old imperialism and how it ignored mans tendancy to form into groups based on things they have in common.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Here are some interesting but very, very politically incorrect (and maybe even racist) articles that, if true, might help to answer the OP's question. It's one of those things that people might think about or suspect but that no one would dare to mention in public.

IQ: Why Africa is Africa and Haiti Haiti
http://vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq.htm

The Intelligence of Nations
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm

Solving The African IQ Conundrum : "Winning Personality" Masks Low Scores
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq_conundrum.htm

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In two earlier VDARE.COM articles (click here and here), I discussed the low average African IQ of 70 reported by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in their path-breaking book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

As their IQ map of the world illustrates, the average IQ for all countries is 90 (The Wealth of Nations is mapped by their IQ, By Glen Owen, November 10, 2003). Less than one in five countries has national IQs equal or near the British norm of 100. Almost half the countries have national IQs of 90 or less.</end quote></div>

Note. I didn't say that I believed this nor that I endorse these op-eds, only that they might be worth reading and that the question of IQ across different groups of people might be worth considering even though the social implications of this matter might be unpalatable and politically incorrect. Of course, we rightfully hate the idea proposed...but what if it is true? Note that the author also claimed that East Asians beat out whites in the IQ department (107 to 100).</end quote></div>

It is true that the average IQ in Africa is pretty damn low. What those studies seem to ignore, however, is that IQ and caloric intake are very highly correlated. There is a ton of malnutrition in Africa which is a large reason for there lower average IQ.

Yeah, many studies also ignore that. And we will never know HOW LARGE. And all the studies such as these that "border on Racism" cannot be simply ignored. I wound not reach for race cards without knowing the motives of the study..........But as in other studies you can pretty much find whatever your looking for. As the latest "Africa" version of Vanity Fair brings out "In 2000 Africans averaged the highest Educational Attainments of any group in the United States." THis would indicate that at least within the bounds of Western Education, Africans can and Have been above or equal to any other group as far as intellect and aptitude. What kind of IQ results would you expect from US farming people living in a trailer park in the 50's or those idiot KKK people that live "way out in the stix" Ethiopia has 70 Million people - 3 million live in the capital! All those other 67M people are poor farmers in the countryside. If they dont live westernized lives what scores would you expect from westernized tests? How would WE fare on an agricultural or herding test? Would we fail because we wouldnt know how to or when to properly plant a crop or how to remove feathers from a chicken? Or how to milk a cow?

Some of these countries have a weird mixture of old style living next to Western style. Your literally in a taxi driving next to someone thats on a what looks like a wooden raft with wheels being pulled by a donkey aka "donkey taxi." With a western style 20 story office building on one side and a tin roof cafe on the other side. In the end things will work themselves out. As you all know i just :heart: China. But you should be damn glad that African nations are not pollution and sucking up oil and resources because of growth like China is and India soon will be. Thats like the thing what most people dont think of.

And i will just top it off by saying regardless of what Africans have learned from their colonial masters, or what they have made up in acting out their atrocities TO ME it pales in comparison the the western style industrial war machine. And some scary stuff goes in in Africa, i once saw a real documentary where Edi Amin had the camera turn a way from him, he shot someone point blank, and then direct the camera to look at him again like nothing had happened!) Although snipping off an enemies genitals is very personal the fact that we have concepts such as M.A.D. or its so impersonal to drop chemicals such as "whiskey Pete" is out of this world. TO me its like "We chop off civilians arms for diamonds" VS "We have an agreements that we will wipe all traces of life from the planet" Thats like Light saber vs the Deathstar.

 

[dennilfloss]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Czar

Thats not an obstacle, there is tribalism everywhere in the world, most often its called nationalism because your tribe forms its own nation. The problem is old imperialism and how it ignored mans tendancy to form into groups based on things they have in common.</end quote></div>

Here are some interesting tidbits on the matter.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/065.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/20...25/opinion/edpower.php

 

[StageLeft]

And i will just top it off by saying regardless of what Africans have learned from their colonial masters, or what they have made up in acting out their atrocities TO ME it pales in comparison the the western style industrial war machine.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. However, I'd rather side with the person who drives a Hummer and goes through 10 garbage bags a week in personal refuse to the one that forces me to rape my mom then shoot my family to death, but hey that's just my opinion of things.

Thats like Light saber vs the Deathstar.

True, the end may be worse in the deathstar case, but so far those of us in the West and our Russian buddies who we started this MAD thing with have both avoided the constant, savage strife that has and continues to plague so much of Africa. Even even before we were building nukes like they were just another fast food restaurant, we weren't engaging in warfare in the same awful way some African nations have (and do). Heck, it's worse than anything Japan or Germany did in WWII in many cases (not on the scale, of course, but if you look at a case-by-case).

 

[piasabird]

A lot of poor countries have only themselves to blame. However, maybe they just prefer large number of hopeless ignorant villagers. People have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If we stop sending money they will just have to deal with their own problems. Africa has plenty of resources.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya

The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.
</end quote></div>
Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

QFT

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Shivetya
The gist of it is, the money is there but its sucked up by the little tinhat dictators, their cronies, and those who act like them but fly under the radar. Combined with crushing government regulations and a corrupt court system and it all adds up to a poor country staying forever poor.

Sums up the U.S. perfectly.

It has been said before, but you are either a well crafted troll or a moron for the ages.

I'll take troll for 2,000, Alex.

But then again... simple, collectivist, knee-jerk decisions are the hallmark of the moron...


This isn't about imperialism, tribalism, or bootstraps. That's all nonsense from ideologues dancing around reality. Ask yourself, would YOU buy property in Africa today? Would you invest in an African country? Hell no! Now ask yourself, why not? I'm sure that the Nigerian scams come to mind for starters, but what does that mean? It means a complete and total lack of confidence. It means that you believe that any of your property invested in Africa will not be protected from wrongful theft by the governments there. Don't you people understand why so many immigrants to America become successful? And there's your answer. The uniform rule of law creates confidence and drives trade and investment and leads to prosperity. Likewise, corruption and the lack of rule of law discourages industry and investment and leads to poverty.

And if you think it's bad for us, half a world away, then just imagine how it is for them. So please quit apologizing or talking nonsense, and try for once to consider solutions that might actually help the people affected, as opposed to those that just forward your personal political ideology.